Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX First Impressions

I just spent over six hours today listening to my friend's new Wilson Audio Chronosonic XVX loudspeakers. Consistent with being blown away by the Master Chronosonic + Master Subsonic system at Maier Shadi's demo in Santa Monica, and consistent with a couple of reports by people who auditioned at Maier's both the Master Chronosonic and later the XVX and preferred the XVX, I am here to report officially that I think the XVX is now my favorite conventional cone driver speaker system. I think I prefer the XVX even to my longtime favorite dynamic driver loudspeaker, the mighty Rockport Arrakis.

Prior to the XVX, my friend had the Alexx. The height alone of the XVX over the Alexx affords the system the height and scale and grandeur I always notice and appreciate from very tall loudspeakers.

I don't know why the XVX is an order of magnitude better -- next level better -- than the Alexx. But I am certain that it is.

I think the XVX is the first dynamic driver speaker of which I was very aware that you can hear seemingly almost everything at fairly low listening volumes. It doesn't need to be played loudly to be heard comfortably.

In much the same way that people like to applaud their digital playback systems by saying "it sounds like analog," dynamic driver loudspeaker aficionados like to say their cone speakers have "electrostatic-like transparency." Believe me, if most dynamic driver speakers had "electrostatic-like transparency" we would not need electrostatic speakers.

As somebody who loves electrostatic speakers I have always been aware that speakers of other topologies are one or two steps less transparent than electrostatic speakers. I feel like the XVX truly has "electrostatic-like transparency" -- at least credibly so, and more so than any other cone speaker I've ever heard.

Just like I felt about the Master Chronosonic the XVX gives one the sense of unlimited dynamic capability. There is a limitlessness and an effortlessness to the sound that I do not hear from other box speakers. Other heroically inert box speakers sound tightly wrapped or button-downed by comparison -- like some portion of the sound is trapped in the box and having trouble freeing itself. The XVX sounds open somehow -- a sonic presentation I associate with planar speakers, not with big box speakers.

I know, I know, I know. I am thinking and saying the same things you are: these are meaningless statements as you can't compare loudspeakers in different systems from fault-prone memory; you will never be able to hear an XVX versus a Rockport Arrakis, or an XVX versus a VSA Ultra 11, in the same room with the same associated components at the same time, etc., etc. I know, and I agree with you.

All I am saying is that if you put a gun to my head and told me I had to buy a dynamic driver loudspeaker system for my personal system and cost was not a factor. . . I would say take the gun away from my head. Then I would tell you I will order XVX + Master Subsonics.

Without intending to be coy, I couch this is terms of "the XVX is the box speaker I would I buy if I had to buy a box speaker for myself" rather than "the XVX is the best box speaker I've ever heard," because I cannot hear the Von Schweikert Audio Ultra 11 and the Evolution Acoustics MM7 and the Rockport Arrakis and the YG XV in the same room in the same system as the XVX + Subsonics. So it just does not make any sense to declare, and it is analytically defective to declare, that the XVX is the best speaker I have ever heard.

My view that if I had to buy a box speaker I would buy the XVX + Subsonics is a combination of what I heard from the XVX, what I vaguely remember from hearing these other other speakers in other systems, and my slight prejudice against ceramic drivers which I would be worried I might find uncomfortable over a long period of time. (I would worry the same about beryllium drivers and about diamond encrusted drivers.)

I have owned only planar loudspeakers my entire life. I literally couldn't bear to listen to Wilson Audio speakers with metal dome tweeters. I have never been a big fan of Wilson Audio speakers in general. But I thought I heard magic from Maier's demo of the Master Chronosonic, and my experience today proves that that inkling was correct.

I don't know how or what Daryl Wilson did to achieve it, but I am reporting that to my ears the XVX is a very, very special speaker. It is a stunning achievement in dynamic driver loudspeaker design specifically, and in loudspeaker design in general.

PS: Assuming they physically fit in Michael Fremer's listening room, I have no doubt that Michael will upgrade his Alexx to XVX. He might go in not wanting to upgrade, but after hearing these there is no way he's going to be happy without the XVX.

Wilson-XVX.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Not just SETs, no decent sounding tube amps can drive them properly, you need very high powered and high current SS amplification for these speakers to come to life and I don’t know of any that I like. I heard heard 4 major Wamm systems with so called latest greatest mega dollar amps and they all sounded kind of blah and none of the owners were happy. This was Brad’s point, high powered amps just aren’t musical even compared to mid powered solid state ones, never mind lower powered tube and SET ones.

david

I can believe the amps were Blah , but i don't believe its because they were high powered.. ..
 
Sorry, this incorrect. There are WAMMs and XVXs out there being driven successfully and beautifully by tube amps.

I'd love to know where you heard 4 WAMM systems in owner's homes. Just color me skeptical.
Here’s one of them, the other 3 do not public postings of their systems. I can give a hint on another one you should be able to figure it out by yourself. The gentleman lives in Taipei, he’s very much into cars and has an Apolyt turntable. The system is in a large sloping dedicated room, the Wamms are driven by the large D’Agostino amps.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/american-sound-as-2000-installations-far-east-mr-ts.26053/

We have a difference of opinion about what’s beautiful, high powered tube amps distort even more than SS. Honestly if one needs more than 100-150 watts then solid state is a much better option for me.

david
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: RBFC and KeithR
Here’s one of them, the other 3 do not public postings of their systems. I can give a hint on another one you should be able to figure it out by yourself. The gentleman lives in Taipei, he’s very much into cars and has an Apolyt turntable. The system is in a large sloping dedicated room, the Wamms are driven by the large D’Agostino amps.

https://www.whatsbestforum.com/threads/american-sound-as-2000-installations-far-east-mr-ts.26053/

We have a difference of opinion about what’s beautiful, high powered tube amps distort even more than SS. Honestly if one needs more than 100-150 watts then solid state is a much better option for me.

david


Very few WAMM owners post anywhere. I have met many of the WAMM owners in Asia. I was not involved in any of those installations so I cannot comment on the results. Certainly the link posted shows WAMMs not remotely close to being set up. Given your description of the systems, I wonder if resistors are in need of attention.

As for tubes, there is a WAMM in France driven beautifully by a pair of ARC REF160M. The system is in an early eighteenth century chateau in a room far larger that you would ever expect a 140 wpc amp to work on a WAMM. But even so, likely not your cup of tea.
 
As for tubes, there is a WAMM in France driven beautifully by a pair of ARC REF160M. The system is in an early eighteenth century chateau in a room far larger that you would ever expect a 140 wpc amp to work on a WAMM.

You can see a nice write-up with many pictures of that WAMM setup in Chateau de Marrault in this article at TAB. Spot Bill in the last photo.
 
How is this logical you select amps before knowing speaker load or sensitivity thats backwards ..
Garbage in = Garbage out

It’s a lot better IMO to get the best amps and sources you can and then find the perfect match with the speakers.

Of course I used to be a speaker first guy like most audiophiles but I had some very clear experiences of sources and amps absolutely ruining the sound from otherwise great speakers that changed my mind.

If a speaker can only be “driven” properly by amps that cannot get the level of realism I desire then that speaker will be forever “off the list”. I don’t consider amps to be just the shove because I consider electronic distortions the most pernicious to reproduction realism.
 
  • Like
Reactions: goodsource
This really depends on planer roll off and transition frequency vs listening distance to dipole panels .

You dont necessarily have to be out front of the panels , unlike a typical monopole, this has been my experience ..
I have had many big panels but the physics of crossovers, phase and group delay aren’t really different.
 
I would agree that as a rule, subs are not ideal when placed behind the mains. but there is no guarantee that placing them in front is necessarily best. There are many factors to consider. Are the subs and mains the same brand and if so, it is assumed the manufacturer can make an optimal recommendation based on the system design and listening distance from the speaker. Ideally they can use impulse response and laser measurements to confirm equal arrival time at the listening position . If the brands between subs and mains are different, all bets are off. This is compounded if the amps are different and have different group delays. A good starting point is to keep the subs and main drivers in the same plane to begin, and then experiment. It may be that the best placement (i.e. equal arrival time for subs and mains) is a bit behind, a bit forward, or in the same plane. In my experience with a myriad of systems, there is no way to know this a priori. With dsp and impulse measurements, it's pretty straight forward to optimize. In analog systems, impulse measurements using the crossover frequency can still be used and are most likely the gold standard but even then, subjective sonic refinements can be very useful to dial things in to your liking.
I was only referring to time alignment.
 
We have discussed that already in another thread
Atmasphere (ralph )with his vast recording expirience concluded that the main culprit of sound degradation is the storage medium ..
Dave wilson once did a exhibition with a cheap amp on a show iirc.
Good full range speakers can already sound awesome with a well made 1-2 K amp .

....imo.

By the way gorgious wamm set up i n that castle.
And fantastic attention to detail
regarding the built quality of this speaker design .
 
Last edited:
Very few WAMM owners post anywhere. I have met many of the WAMM owners in Asia. I was not involved in any of those installations so I cannot comment on the results. Certainly the link posted shows WAMMs not remotely close to being set up. Given your description of the systems, I wonder if resistors are in need of attention.

As for tubes, there is a WAMM in France driven beautifully by a pair of ARC REF160M. The system is in an early eighteenth century chateau in a room far larger that you would ever expect a 140 wpc amp to work on a WAMM. But even so, likely not your cup of tea.
Good to know because the systems I heard all had SS electronics. Wether this system is my cup of tea or not is irrelevant the owner is who has to like it.

david
 
Last edited:
Not just SETs, no decent sounding tube amps can drive them properly, you need very high powered and high current SS amplification for these speakers to come to life and I don’t know of any that I like. I heard heard 4 major Wamm systems with so called latest greatest mega dollar amps and they all sounded kind of blah and none of the owners were happy. This was Brad’s point, high powered amps just aren’t musical even compared to mid powered solid state ones, never mind lower powered tube and SET ones.

david

David,

Please tell all these people that I will happily exchange my pair of musical Lamm ML3's and the LL1 for a pair WAMM's , even considering they are hard to amplify according to yours and their preferences... :)
 
Very few WAMM owners post anywhere. I have met many of the WAMM owners in Asia. I was not involved in any of those installations so I cannot comment on the results. Certainly the link posted shows WAMMs not remotely close to being set up. Given your description of the systems, I wonder if resistors are in need of attention.

As for tubes, there is a WAMM in France driven beautifully by a pair of ARC REF160M. The system is in an early eighteenth century chateau in a room far larger that you would ever expect a 140 wpc amp to work on a WAMM. But even so, likely not your cup of tea.

Can't we assume that someone from Wilson personally set up these WAMM's? Are you saying the set up is incorrect?
 

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing